Only in America tm

willhud9 wrote: I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence.

So what if the dastardly Democrats in fact had this as their endgame, and managed to carry it through? Actually got everyone's guns? Potentially tens of thousands of Americans a year wouldn't die for no good reason and some people would be butthurt and be saying "I told you so! Those fuckers wanted our guns from the start!". Seems like an odd thing to fear.

It's just an unwillingness to make any sacrifice, any contribution to society, no matter how small the cost, or how big the benefit. Just like the fuckers who think taxation is theft, even if (or especially if) it would fund a life-saving healthcare system. There's a word to describe those who push back against such progressivism: "anti-social". Anti-socialism is baked into America's DNA to the point that "socialist" is one of the worst accusations that can be hurled at politicians. As a nation, America's capable of great things; as a society, you guys are fucked unless you pull your heads out of your asses.

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote: I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence.

So what if the dastardly Democrats in fact had this as their endgame, and managed to carry it through? Actually got everyone's guns? Potentially tens of thousands of Americans a year wouldn't die for no good reason and some people would be butthurt and be saying "I told you so! Those fuckers wanted our guns from the start!". Seems like an odd thing to fear.

It's just an unwillingness to make any sacrifice, any contribution to society, no matter how small the cost, or how big the benefit. Just like the fuckers who think taxation is theft, even if (or especially if) it would fund a life-saving healthcare system. There's a word to describe those who push back against such progressivism: "anti-social". Anti-socialism is baked into America's DNA to the point that "socialist" is one of the worst accusations that can be hurled at politicians. As a nation, America's capable of great things; as a society, you guys are fucked unless you pull your heads out of your asses.

But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

Oh who needs personal cars? After all its better for everyone if we use public transportation for everything. Less motor incidents, less pollution. For the greater good of society let's ban cars.

If a large group of people got behind an idea of which they perceive would better society we run the risk of marginalizing people's rights.

Alcohol was the case of this back in the 20's. What purpose does alcohol serve for society? It causes a lot of problems. It causes a lot of cost to society. In fact, alcohol costs more in lives per year in the United States than guns, and yet we do not see any significant pushes to ban alcohol? why?

Because we tried it. The Christian left pushed really hard to ban the distribution of alcohol. And because they pushed so hard they spoiled the progressive movement in the United States. It was not conservatives who wanted alcohol gone, but progressives. They believed alcohol was a stain on society and society would be better off without it and so in the name of progress it'd be best to just stop drinking alcohol.

And because of that a lot of New Deal progressive policies were met with hesitation and out right rejection. Because of that the roaring twenties were dominated by Laissez-faire economics instead of the established progressive economics presidents Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson had overseen. A lot of progress was LOST because progressive pushed too hard on an issue and spoiled their own progress.

This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality. They fail to apply what is practical. Sure, there really is NO point in people having handguns. Sure there really is no societal benefit for someone having the right to carry. But there are plenty of things that have no societal benefit that we allow despite the fact that it is arguably not good for society. And even still being able to want something is not a bad motivation. Today i wanted McDonald's. I was in the mood for salty french fries (chips for you English folk) and there is a McDonald's next door. Obesity has cost more lives than guns. Are we going to ban the right to purchase McDonald's? Are we going to force McDonald's to serve only healthy food products? Lower the salt to healthy portions? Because people eat at fast food restaurants healthcare costs are high due to obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.

and there are probably a lot of you who actually would be all for that and it is scary. Because freedom of choice should always trump societal woes and scares. Especially because all it takes is a far-right government to go: "Oh, books are a problem and are costing society by *insert fabricated statistics*. So let's ban books." If we give governments the power to ban things in the name of security and the greater good of society we risk having the same government abuse said power. And in a country rife with racial tension I know a few demographics that would not be happy with a strong state to abuse power.

willhud9 wrote:
But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

............................

And in a country rife with racial tension I know a few demographics that would not be happy with a strong state to abuse power.

I guess that explains Trump. if you do not trust your government to do anything, may as well have an arsehole in power.

The thin end of the wedge argument has been debunked many times.

Seriously, if there is no collective action, why bother with government? Collective action is impossible without discommoding some. in the UK we have Brexit - bad for the economy, bad for jobs etc - but the 48% that disagree simply accept that that is democracy in action.

Most racial tension in the US emanates from discrimination, any state worth its salt should be able to clamp down on that and force equality.

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote: I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence.

So what if the dastardly Democrats in fact had this as their endgame, and managed to carry it through? Actually got everyone's guns? Potentially tens of thousands of Americans a year wouldn't die for no good reason and some people would be butthurt and be saying "I told you so! Those fuckers wanted our guns from the start!". Seems like an odd thing to fear.

Indeed, that's the point the gun-fetish brigade wilfully refuse to understand - that allowing a nation to become awash with easily available guns, not only increases the probability that someone will use those guns to inflict lots of carnage, but makes it easier for violent inadequates to get their names in the history books via this route. Quite often, the sort of inadequates we're talking about, are people who would run a fucking mile if someone challenged them to a fist fight, but who magically become invincible superheroes in the holograms of their kapok-filled minds, the moment they have some lethal metal in hand.

And that, at bottom, is the whole problem with the gun-fetish culture. It rests, ultimately, on a toxic combination of emotions, of the sort that Freud would have assigned immediately to the id. At bottom, the gun-fetish crowd are driven by "me like bang-bang, bang-bang give me hard-on". It's that fucking infantile. All this cock about a so-called "sacred" Constitutional duty, and protection of self and family, is precisely that - it's total fucking cock, made up to try and paint a veneer of fake respectability on the desire to look Big And Hard™ in front of fellow inadequates. It's the equivalent of having a big pair of fuck-off antlers for a deer - a way of signalling to the other competitors in the gene pool "I get the territory and the pussy, you can fuck off".

It's precisely because guns are so appealing to basement dwellers, that sensible jurisdictions exercise restraint upon the opportunities of said basement dwellers to get their hands on hardware that - let's be honest here - is designed and built for the express purpose of killing things. Let's sweep aside all that other cock from the bang-bang nappy brigade, about knives being weapons of death, or cars being lethal in the wrong hands, etc., because it is fucking cock, and a sign of desperation on the part of the firearms wankers, clutching at whatever straws they can to try and justify their wank-fantasy posturing. All of these other items that are routinely brought in to try and preserve the status quo via the usual tired apologetics, were designed for primary purposes other than killing things, and are, in sensible jurisdictions, subject to their own rules and regulations, because it's possible to do damage accidentally with them if they're handled incompetently. Guns, on the other hand, were designed with killing as their primary purpose, which sets them apart amongst those of us with functioning neurons.

Worse still, modern weapons provide a level of insulation from the carnage, that makes it even easier for inadequates to treat the whole business of slaughtering a crowd as being no more onerous than playing a real-life version of Serious Sam. Anyone using a knife has to get up close and personal with the intended victim, possibly inviting successful retaliation, and has to face the resulting bloody mess close up. Which, as quite a few people with military service behind them will tell you, is likely to result in the attacker experiencing a state of shock, either immediately or afterwards. Rare, fortunately, are the people who can launch into knife attacks without very compelling reasons for doing so, and indeed, my understanding is that the military actually tries to weed out such people at the recruitment stage, because the military prefers its serving personnel to have normal human responses, not least because this is generally conducive to maintaining discipline. Guns, however, allow for slaughter at a distance, and equally distance the attacker from the human consequences of murderous action when this option is chosen. Sensible jurisdictions recognise this, and plan accordingly.

Trouble is, the entire debate on this matter has been hijacked by the bang-bang nappy brigade, and the corporate vampires making blood money from the situation, to an extent that has corrupted the arena of discourse on this topic irrevocably. It's impossible to have a sensible debate with these shitheads, and as long as their corruption of the arena of discourse has deadly results, they should be marginalised and put into the fucking playpen where they belong.

OlivierK wrote:It's just an unwillingness to make any sacrifice, any contribution to society, no matter how small the cost, or how big the benefit. Just like the fuckers who think taxation is theft, even if (or especially if) it would fund a life-saving healthcare system. There's a word to describe those who push back against such progressivism: "anti-social".

Quite often, the same "me me me" attitude reflects itself in adherence to multiple selfish ideas of this sort. Though most of the ignorant wankers holding such ideas, are usually blissfully unaware of how much they owe to the commonwealth. A good number of them don't even recognise the existence of that concept, let alone its applicability.

OlivierK wrote:Anti-socialism is baked into America's DNA to the point that "socialist" is one of the worst accusations that can be hurled at politicians. As a nation, America's capable of great things; as a society, you guys are fucked unless you pull your heads out of your asses.

We're seeing a variation on the same brand of shit here in the UK, as a result of seven years untrammeled right-wing kleptocracy. The spreading of the notion that any act of compassion, extended to those beyond the narrow pale of self-interest, equals "socialism" or "Marxism". But this, of course, serves the agenda of the tax-haven rich, so this venomous falsehood will persist as long as said tax-haven rich own the media here, and display a willingness to put naked self-interest before the public good during their stewardship of said media.

Indeed, another reason that the entire bang-bang fetish isn't going to be addressed, is because it provides the ideal means of distracting the plebs from learning how they're being shafted by the tax-haven rich. It suits the agenda of those with questionable incomes and even more questionable offshore accounts, to have the plebs look in another direction whilst the money is being squirrelled out of sight. That's before you factor in the manner in which some of those tax-haven rich are profiting directly from the carnage.

willhud9 wrote:
But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

Oh who needs personal cars? After all its better for everyone if we use public transportation for everything. Less motor incidents, less pollution. For the greater good of society let's ban cars.

If a large group of people got behind an idea of which they perceive would better society we run the risk of marginalizing people's rights.

Car ownership isn't a constitutional right though.

Rights are an artifice of human society. They are not inherent. The complaining about the "right to bear arms" being taken away, is purely about something being "taken away" which historically people get pissy about. They don't like having things taken away, regardless of whether they actually need the things or not or that the things they have may actually harm others.

I'm not saying that a push to an outright ban is the way forward (I think you make a valid point in your example about the prohibition) but, removing the "right" would be a step. Removing the right and implementing a licencing system akin to that for car ownership would be a better step.

Sendraks wrote:

willhud9 wrote:
But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

Oh who needs personal cars? After all its better for everyone if we use public transportation for everything. Less motor incidents, less pollution. For the greater good of society let's ban cars.

If a large group of people got behind an idea of which they perceive would better society we run the risk of marginalizing people's rights.

Car ownership isn't a constitutional right though.

You do have the right to purchase a car though. The 5th amendment grants the right to liberty and property unless due process of the law says otherwise i.e. you broke a law and are subject to jail. The 9th amendment grants rights that are not listed in the constitution, such as the right to purchase property, the right to privacy, etc.

We regulate the ability to drive said car, but if you are on private property you do not have to follow any law about driving.

Rights are an artifice of human society. They are not inherent. The complaining about the "right to bear arms" being taken away, is purely about something being "taken away" which historically people get pissy about. They don't like having things taken away, regardless of whether they actually need the things or not or that the things they have may actually harm others.

Sure rights are granted, but at the same time rights are also widespread and cover a wide array of topics. Where some government's believe certain rights should be restricted = a safer society, other governments believe allowing more rights = a freer society. The rub is finding a balance of the two.

I'm not saying that a push to an outright ban is the way forward (I think you make a valid point in your example about the prohibition) but, removing the "right" would be a step. Removing the right and implementing a licencing system akin to that for car ownership would be a better step.

For the most part I agree, but again I have the right to own a car because have the right to own property. I do not have the right to drive my car everywhere I please. I would say the same concept should be applied to firearms. You have the right to own a firearm, but do not have the right to carry it wherever you please without a license. You do not have the right to discharge the firearm without a license. You do not have the right to purchase ammunition without a license. The list goes on.

zulumoose wrote:I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

Where I lived in Massachusetts the crime was "discharging a firearm within town limits", so illegal to fire a gun there. Where I live now you need to be at least 100 yards from a dwelling, which is around 91 meters. I don't know if that includes your own dwelling or not.
Pointing a gun at someone is absolutely a crime too, but I don't know what it's officially called where I live.

willhud9 wrote:I am very much pro-gun.

Herein lies much of the problem. We've managed to divide into two big factions that, on the surface, appear to be diametrically opposed to each other when in fact these factions really shouldn't exist. Gun control has become part of the Culture War. It's us vs. them; there's no middle ground.

Consider cars. Cars are large, heavy objects made of hard materials, that travel at velocities high enough to be potentially dangerous when misused, or used by the wrong people. For this reason, we have certain laws and regulations in place to restrict access to, and limit the misuse of cars. I, for one, am glad that these regulations exist, and yet no one would call me "anti-car". There's no "car debate". People who want either more or fewer automobile regulations haven't divided into two diametrically opposed sides that hate and vilify each other. There are no pro-car or anti-car factions because car issues haven't been infected by politics and ideology, probably because there's no damn second amendment for cars.

I've never considered myself to be pro-gun or anti-gun. It's all relative, after all. Relative to you, I'm anti-gun, but relative to some others, I'm pro-gun. I've never had any interest in owning a gun personally, but I don't think all gun owners are evil. I don't hate someone who likes target shooting for the same reason that I don't hate someone who likes archery. I don't think someone who hunts ducks for food is any morally worse than someone who buys meat from the supermarket.

Gun regulation shouldn't be a binary issue. It's not an all or nothing proposition. Most of us aren't way out at the extremes of either a total blanket ban or mandatory guns for everyone. Most of us are somewhere in the fat middle of the bell curve, but we can't find the middle in terms of legislation because of the damn culture war, and the damn second amendment, and the goddamn zealots at the NRA.

Stop being pro-gun. Don't be anti-gun either. Dump the ideology, and try to be objective. Consider all the statistics, and all the successes, and all the failures on matters of gun control, both here and abroad, and just try to be sensible. Don't be afraid to learn from other countries. Don't be afraid of change, as more often than not, when cultures change, it's for the better. And for god's sake, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote: I believe we can see a massive reduction in gun deaths without having to repeal the 2nd or ban guns. But the issue is trust. Many gun owners do not trust the progressive party who seem to be going after the gun and not the violence.

So what if the dastardly Democrats in fact had this as their endgame, and managed to carry it through? Actually got everyone's guns? Potentially tens of thousands of Americans a year wouldn't die for no good reason and some people would be butthurt and be saying "I told you so! Those fuckers wanted our guns from the start!". Seems like an odd thing to fear.

It's just an unwillingness to make any sacrifice, any contribution to society, no matter how small the cost, or how big the benefit. Just like the fuckers who think taxation is theft, even if (or especially if) it would fund a life-saving healthcare system. There's a word to describe those who push back against such progressivism: "anti-social". Anti-socialism is baked into America's DNA to the point that "socialist" is one of the worst accusations that can be hurled at politicians. As a nation, America's capable of great things; as a society, you guys are fucked unless you pull your heads out of your asses.

But you can do that with virtually anything and justify it for the "betterment of society"

Oh who needs personal cars? After all its better for everyone if we use public transportation for everything. Less motor incidents, less pollution. For the greater good of society let's ban cars.

If a large group of people got behind an idea of which they perceive would better society we run the risk of marginalizing people's rights.

Alcohol was the case of this back in the 20's. What purpose does alcohol serve for society? It causes a lot of problems. It causes a lot of cost to society. In fact, alcohol costs more in lives per year in the United States than guns, and yet we do not see any significant pushes to ban alcohol? why?

Because we tried it. The Christian left pushed really hard to ban the distribution of alcohol. And because they pushed so hard they spoiled the progressive movement in the United States. It was not conservatives who wanted alcohol gone, but progressives. They believed alcohol was a stain on society and society would be better off without it and so in the name of progress it'd be best to just stop drinking alcohol.

And because of that a lot of New Deal progressive policies were met with hesitation and out right rejection. Because of that the roaring twenties were dominated by Laissez-faire economics instead of the established progressive economics presidents Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson had overseen. A lot of progress was LOST because progressive pushed too hard on an issue and spoiled their own progress.

This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality. They fail to apply what is practical. Sure, there really is NO point in people having handguns. Sure there really is no societal benefit for someone having the right to carry. But there are plenty of things that have no societal benefit that we allow despite the fact that it is arguably not good for society. And even still being able to want something is not a bad motivation. Today i wanted McDonald's. I was in the mood for salty french fries (chips for you English folk) and there is a McDonald's next door. Obesity has cost more lives than guns. Are we going to ban the right to purchase McDonald's? Are we going to force McDonald's to serve only healthy food products? Lower the salt to healthy portions? Because people eat at fast food restaurants healthcare costs are high due to obesity, diabetes, and hypertension.

and there are probably a lot of you who actually would be all for that and it is scary. Because freedom of choice should always trump societal woes and scares. Especially because all it takes is a far-right government to go: "Oh, books are a problem and are costing society by *insert fabricated statistics*. So let's ban books." If we give governments the power to ban things in the name of security and the greater good of society we risk having the same government abuse said power. And in a country rife with racial tension I know a few demographics that would not be happy with a strong state to abuse power.

This isn't so much an argument against gun control as it is an argument in favor of anarchy. Are you an anarchist?

The fact is, all democracies operate somewhere between the two extremes of lawless anarchy and absolute tyranny. Gun control isn't an all or nothing proposition. Try to think of gun control as you would about all the other various laws and regulations that we live with, that haven't been so politicized. Improvement by steps is possible, and doesn't necessarily lead to an immediate and inevitable slide into totalitarianism.

Good words.

The_Piper wrote:

zulumoose wrote:I don't have the facts on hand to verify this, maybe someone else can chip in, but I believe in many countries pointing a firearm is classed as assault, and discharging a firearm in a public place is a crime, I doubt if either of those apply in the U.S.

Where I lived in Massachusetts the crime was "discharging a firearm within town limits", so illegal to fire a gun there. Where I live now you need to be at least 100 yards from a dwelling, which is around 91 meters. I don't know if that includes your own dwelling or not.
Pointing a gun at someone is absolutely a crime too, but I don't know what it's officially called where I live.

Aggravated assault, probably.

willhud9 wrote:Alcohol was the case of this back in the 20's. What purpose does alcohol serve for society? It causes a lot of problems. It causes a lot of cost to society. In fact, alcohol costs more in lives per year in the United States than guns, and yet we do not see any significant pushes to ban alcohol? why?

Because we tried it. ... This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality.

On the other hand, I live somewhere that tried, with success, to implement strict gun control in the real world (we didn't ban guns, before you wheel that strawman out again).

It's fucking fantastic.

Seabass wrote:
The fact is, all democracies operate somewhere between the two extremes of lawless anarchy and absolute tyranny. Gun control isn't an all or nothing proposition. Try to think of gun control as you would about all the other various laws and regulations that we live with, that haven't been so politicized. Improvement by steps is possible, and doesn't necessarily lead to an immediate and inevitable slide into totalitarianism.

I'm sure a lot of those using the "defense against totalitarian regime" argument wouldn't mind living in a dictatorship as long as they are on the gravy side of it and can use the guns against the suppressed minorities.

This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality. They fail to apply what is practical.

America doesn't need to see itself as an isolated case, and leapfrog over the rest of the world to carry out isolated pie-in-the-sky experiments like the prohibition era alcohol ban.

America needs to see itself as a member of the civilized world, and play CATCH-UP in terms of policies that have been proven to work for the benefit of all, with decades of successful experience to illustrate. This applies to many things, gun control and healthcare being just the most immediately obvious.

Seabass wrote:

willhud9 wrote:I am very much pro-gun.

Stop being pro-gun. Don't be anti-gun either. Dump the ideology, and try to be objective. Consider all the statistics, and all the successes, and all the failures on matters of gun control, both here and abroad, and just try to be sensible. Don't be afraid to learn from other countries. Don't be afraid of change, as more often than not, when cultures change, it's for the better. And for god's sake, try to put yourself in the shoes of people who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

You took a lot of stuff and made it seem as if it responded to me but I don’t know how. I am 100% all for strong gun control. But I am also for allowing people the right to own firearms. I have no support for gun bans nor feel good policies such as targeting magazine sizes or “assault” weapons (which are used in a slim percentage of all gun deaths to be practically negligible statistically).

I am also not afraid of change. I don’t own guns. Any laws passed won’t affect me one bit. And to be perfectly honest I’m not going to lose sleep if I woke up tomorrow and no longer had the right to buy a firearm, but I can see why plenty of people would be upset.

As for the empathy argument that’s an appeal to emotion.

As for your other post. No I’m not an anarchist, but I’m a believer in pragmatic politics. Not wishful thinking. I am also a firm believer in individual rights > collective rights.

zulumoose wrote:

This is my problem with fellow progressives. They are so ideologically driven they fail to apply their ideology to reality. They fail to apply what is practical.

America doesn't need to see itself as an isolated case, and leapfrog over the rest of the world to carry out isolated pie-in-the-sky experiments like the prohibition era alcohol ban.

America needs to see itself as a member of the civilized world, and play CATCH-UP in terms of policies that have been proven to work for the benefit of all, with decades of successful experience to illustrate. This applies to many things, gun control and healthcare being just the most immediately obvious.

But it’s not anywhere close to where Australia or the UK was in terms of gun ownership and gun favorability. You cannot reasonably expect the US to adopt their policies with no issues. I’m not even talking about the backlash and resistance. I’m talking about the logistics. How exactly is the US going to enforce a gun ban when there are more guns than people in this country? Search and seizures? Give the armed police more power for unreasonable searches?

There are clear logistical issues that are not practically brought up as to how to implement them safely, legally, and peacefully.

Which is why a compromise is the best field. I know people on this forum tend to view centrist positions as weak but more times than not they are closer to getting the job done then pushing for an ideology.

How exactly is the US going to enforce a gun ban when there are more guns than people in this country? Search and seizures? Give the armed police more power for unreasonable searches?

In stages.

Registration first - get a list, all others are automatically illegal.
Then step up in stages the requirements for buying, storing and selling both guns and ammunition, include qualifications and motivations.
Voluntary surrender of unregistered firearms, have hand-in days at police stations and public destruction of those guns.
It works.
Guns are only worth what people are prepared to pay for them, and that payment must include some time and hassle like with car licensing, works wonders if you don't really need something.
Suddenly sales will plummet.

What worked elsewhere will work in the U.S., the level of resistance will be higher, but once it takes off the gun industry will be fighting a losing battle and their power will be waning. Nobody will be investing in a shrinking industry.

Not everyone is going to be of the "from my dead hands" ilk. I'm sure there were some in the UK and Australia who tucked their guns away and didn't hand them in but they were a minority. A huge number were handed in and simply given up. The public weren't fooled into thinking the criminals went soft and handed theirs in as well (probably did to dump a few hot weapons) but the shift in the law meant that only criminals still had them after the law changes. To keep them criminalised you.

Those who truly need them for work with livestock and pest control etc got to keep them. Same for sports shooters (rich wankers who like to shoot pheasants and grouse for fun), they kept their shotguns....but with strict licensing and storage laws.

Cars/alcohol/cigarettes/abortions/any other type of medicine/surgery all strictly controlled

Gun's not strictly controlled - does not compute